Mr. Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether personal data held by her Department is always encrypted prior to being transferred to compact discs for transmission. [180400]17 Sep 2008 : Column 2256WMr. Byrne: In line with current Cabinet Office guidance, the Home Office does not always encrypt personal data before transferring it by disc. Since 22 November 2007, the Home Office has been undertaking a review of its technical, process and procedural arrangements to ensure the risk of data being compromised is managed and reduced to a minimum.

I also refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 21 November 2007, Official Report, column 1179:

“…I have asked the Cabinet Secretary and security experts to ensure that all Departments and all agencies check their procedures for the storage and use of data…”

An interim progress report on the review was published by the Cabinet Office through a written ministerial statement on 17 December 2007, Official Report, column 98WS. This included a recommendation to enhance the transparency with Parliament, and the public about the action taken to safeguard information and the results of that action, through publication of results Departmental annual reports and an annual report to Parliament.

Can you stop reviewing and inquiring and JUST ENCRYPT OUR DATA PLEASE?!

… A jury will hear from two officers who fired the fatal shots – the first time their accounts will have been heard.

Former High Court judge Sir Michael Wright has been appointed coroner for the hearing, set to last three months….

As the hearing opened, an internal memo from Met Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair to his staff was leaked. [by him?]

In it, he says the inquest is the right place for the force to “account for” its actions, adding “Our approach will be one of humility.”

The inquest jury will consider whether or not Mr de Menezes was unlawfully killed.

They will hear from some 75 witnesses over three months, including 40 serving police officers who have been granted anonymity, and Tube passengers.

Among those who will be speaking for the first time will be policemen codenamed C2 and C12, the two specialist firearms officers who shot the Brazilian.

Some of the other officers giving evidence appeared at the Old Bailey trial, including surveillance officers accused of failing to establish whether or not the man they were following matched the description of suicide bomber Hussain Osman….

Mr da Silva said the police officers involved should not be allowed anonymity.

“Their images should be shown to the public so everyone knows who these inept policemen are.”

Well, hang on – as regular readers will know, I sympathise with the family and have criticised many aspects of this case, but the police are entitled to the presumption of innocence just as we all are.

An acquaintance said the officers shouldn’t be anonymous because other people suspected of unlawful killing aren’t given anonymity. Well, firstly perhaps other suspects should be given anonymity, secondly the police are in a position rather different from other members of the public, one where there is a higher risk of reprisal and one where a lack of anonymity would compromise their work.

If they are proven to be murderers, or grossly negligent (manslaughter), fair enough, publicise their names if that seems a reasonable thing to do. But I don’t think it’s reasonable at present to deny them anonymity.